Small Stuff

Hallo wooden colleques, due to the further eye operations, finding of a new job and the end of the holidays with my son - I am able to getting restarted back to the beloved Jacinthe . Today I rebuild my workshop back to wood... to start tomorrow. Than I'll go in the afternoon to sign my new job's contract...joining the afterworkparty . Yours Stan

Hello friends after a row of senseless eye operations I'm back in here... working on the Chapelle-plans. That's all in here. Yours Stan Edit here the drawingboard:

Hello friends, here my project of the Dove... A beauty by her lines and rigging, ...and a ship well documented and of a good size for a scale 1/2=ft Lpp: 42' - 11'' = 1' 9.6'' B moulded: 13' - 0'' = 6.6' D.: 6' - 2'' So I'll get a model about some 900 mm Loa and without stand nearly as high as long - at a beam of some 170 mm. A big model but a flate-able one in "The American Fishing Schooner" of Howard I. Chapelle you can find three very good plates of the Canadian pilot schooner "Dove". Biult in 1875 by Sylvester S. Baltzer in Preaux. Nova Scotia. She was owened by Cptn. James George a pilot. She was Canadian - proofed by the text in the index of H.I. Chapelle's book ( p.686). "Dove, Canadian pinky". But what is the right flag to her? So my question is the to the flag - blue or red canadian ensign? But this article confusede my completly: http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/gb-pilot.html#pilot Or does this article deals with the flag used on a ship to show they are under pilots order on the bridge? My english is not good enough for this... Thanks for your help, Chris

Due to the massive reconstruction to be done in here I decided to stop this project. But it is not destroyed - I just "put it on ice" as we say in Germany, when something has to wait until other things are done. Chris

Hello friends of the saw,# due to the fact that I'm permanendly in trainings and teachings I've got no time really to work on my model. So here is the very last progress - the backbone is redy to take in the drawings for the bulkheads slots:

I nearly forgot the reality-check!!! Does it realy fits in the place where I want to put it laterly???

Hello again, I. As the sideview only gives us the position of the deck's superstructure, an auxilliary source may give us the rigt deepon deck... the 14 years older 31 3/95 cutter may be a good reference to look at. Also a sceptic view to the bigger sisters of this class type's trio may be usefull. So I added them, too. What do you think about this? II. I wasn't in the workshop this night - I still was thinking, drinking and constructing my RC's backbone. So I got some solutions and some more problems figured out: So I highlighted these areas with yellow circles for you. The mast's area will be easily supportet against cracking by adding softwood and drill the mast's hole inside. But the staircases area is still a problem and the reduced bulkhead destabilised this part of the construction additivly. Have you any solutions for this, too? Thanks a lot, Chris

Thaks a lot - inbetween I made some progress in the workshop: I've got some tooling equipment by eating not so and avoiding contatct to cigar dealers -so saved the money for this. The framed ship in the background is the Georgian "Experiment" from the "50 Gun Ship" but far too big to be built in 1/2" and on its right the "HMS Hood" of the era of uncertainy Admirals-class copied from "Birth of the Battleship" and framed on VC-cross red ground... she and the giant gun fitted "Benbow" are the favorites of this era to me... But to be realistic towards my capacitys to steam & sail I'll have to turn my mind towards the Crimean Gunboats under 110' Lpp or the later screw sloops with board side guns... and without guns in 3/4 turrets. The next projects will still be Revenue Cutters under Sail. For ships of this size under 1.000 m/m I prepared the workshop:

"Moderation is the order of the day!" otherwise you're going to build a catamaran... Here te latest news: Here you see the inner part placed on the beech plywood strip and below the Stern & Stem - but the keel!!! Is it possible that a nearly 60ft long keel is made from one single pice of tree??? And the plank under it is also from one pice??? Due to the Mondleld's rule "No plank was longer than 35ft" I ask my question. Looking foreward toward your answers, Christian

Hello forum, I've been able to buy the wood for the innen parts of the hull for less than 20€ - it's cuttonwood and beech plywood. Beech for the moulds and the backbone... cuttonwod as filling softwood. I found some dignified substitute for a magnifying glass. Here today's results for you - hopingyou've got fun with this fist steps:

And the hole sideview for the 4x600x100mm board for the backbone:

Hy to all of you, and before disappearing to the diy-shop here the check of the most outside moulds:

Here the next step - the moulds/bulkheads: cut out to square and put together - it fits!

Thanks a lot - the block of softwood will make it easyer than I thought. So I'm still on track. I figured out that the bulkheads are drawn without planking. And by this I could saw them out directly and use them as moulds. The backbone is also 4mm thick - so I can use for the moulds and the backbone the same pice of plywood. But what kind of plywood I should buy tomorrow? Yours, Christian

In a hurry - the pictures of the first scetches on transparent paper. The most beloved problem is the joining of the mast's underdeck part and bulkhead "F" - I think I will surround the part with massive softbook to bore ther in - does this make sence in reality??? Yours, Chris

These plans are direcly enlagements from the Chapelle-book. Bare of any pomp&circumstance - so the these plans are direcly copied from the book and enlaged in a very good copyshop in Berlin- Prenzlauer Berg (Germany) . And the copymaschines are so good, that I can invert the drawings to white on black - so I can figure out the middle of the lines. Now the backboard is nearly ready, My mainproblem ist the "crossing" of the foremast with frame "F"... so I'llhave to built a solid softwoodenblock arround the point of crossing and bore a hole fore the mast in there later. Do you think this may work? I made the pictures already but my mobilephone is still in the loadingprocess so you have to wait a little bit. Sorry for this. Yours Chris

The Cent is a Canadian one. The ruler a metric one. The Cat felt asleep on the papers. So the cuting out will have to wait...

So I decided to make use of the 1829 30tons plans due the rectangular hull lines. Because of this I changed the titel and start now to cut out the bulkheads awaiting the 30 tons story:

Hy Juraj, to pimp up this kit would be a rebuild at all - now I had the time to measure the rigging, too and so I figured out that nothing has any relationship to the Chapelle list beside the drawings! So Im on the trap to a scratch project... So I've the free choice to built the Krick-kit for a more European stile Viking furneal (instead of putting it in the oven) or the go tomorrow into the copyshop -takeing the right dawings with me- to use the impetus of the moment for the scratching of the 31 3/95 tons Revenue Cutter. But as you told to us there is no fact that these Revenue Cutter's Type was built at all. I'm unshure what is to do - to do the right thing. I have got a plenty of Chapelle planes from all his books - today the last leck in my Chapelle's books row was filled by the arriving of "The National Watercraft Collection" . You've got a PM, yours Chris

Hello juhu, I'm proud to be the fifth addresssee of your time here, so I may be allowed to say ""A warm welcome abo(a)rd to you!" Being with the Alert - community of fate you figured out everthing very clearly and detailed, thanks a lot for this. So I can only reply my inherent warning to buy this kit of s*it as you do in No. 3 - but what is the solution to the situation we share both? I guess nothing out of this box of Pandora really fits our demands of historically correctness. I myself think of taring the model down to the keel with an axe to avoid further frustration. As you could read beforehand I decided to "rebuilt" the hull to be abl to recycle the rigging - due to the fact that I don't own a lathe. So I'm going to measure the kit's rigging now to deside IF it is merit to be reutilised. See you later in this theater! Christian Picture's source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Opened_up_a_Pandora%27s_box.jpg

Hy Frank, no I think the just facelifted the box, that may be the point. Oh now there are no gunports, they just shot "through" the bulwalk. It was simple a rope running through the eyes on the top of iron poles. And the gun is also not in a "swivel"gun - a swivel gun is a big/heavy rifle on a fork later with an axis - usually swivel guns were fixed on special posts added to the bulwalk. This carronade is on a middle pivot gliding cariage - yes she swivels at all but the termici technici seperate two kinds of guns small and heavy clearly. And to keep the text clear&easy to read - so I would like to show it to you to avoid a confusion about this two types of guns and their carriages. On the one hand we deal with a small weapon in a fork - coming trom the musketiers of the XVI. century (found on the Marie-Rose for example) a kind of add to aim with a heavy gun's barrel she is only used a gainst soft targerts; and on the other hand one coming from the earliest gun boats (-> Alf Chapman ) - giving the boats a 360° arc of fire usefull in the battels against ships with boardside artillery to keep them selve out of the arc of enmy's fire - by still being able to attack them under all circumstances - able to fire any kind of ammo against hull, rigging and the enemy's crew. a good example of a row of heavy swivelguns is to find here along the boardside and between the catheads there are two middle pivot carriages: http://www.sjohistoriska.se/ImageVaultFiles/id_3070/cf_1781/40.JPG I don't want to sound sententious - but it keeps my mind clear when I know what do you mean, and it makes conversation a lot easier. Yours Chris Source of picture: http://warof1812archaeology.blogspot.de/

I took the wrong set of plans to the copyshop! IT was the 30 tons Cutter of 1829 instead of the 31 3/95 ton ner as I wanted to do. And how happy and sattisfied I am - not to be forced to enlage the plans for the 1829 cutter from Wm. Doughty once again... So let's redo it,

And the proof of scale:

"We are not amused!" Only the distance between the masts seem to be right. So what was to do? I called Mr. Krick... he was only able to tell me that his father construced the kit based on italian plans of a Revenue Cutter named "Alert". This is a product of pure phantasy - she is based on the Doughty's drawings - but the letters for the name on the transom have never been used in this way in the XIX. century. The gun is quite well done and the pivot's construction. So I think I'll evaluate the correctness of the masts, yards and rigging by the data given by Chapelle and in Pettersons book "RIGGING period ship modells": Do you thnk it makes any sence to replace the hull under a well proprtionated rigging? Yours

...feel comfortable and please take a seat. Yours, Small Stuff P.S.: It's till now her personal cup.